inside the GHC code generator

Lemmih lemmih at
Fri Feb 24 05:15:51 EST 2006

On 2/24/06, Bulat Ziganshin <bulat.ziganshin at> wrote:
> Hello kyra,
> Friday, February 24, 2006, 12:37:02 AM, you wrote:
> >> i prefer to see the asm code. this may be because of better high-level
> >> optimization strategies (reusing fib values). the scheme about i say
> >> will combine advantages of both worlds
> k> no strategies, plain exponential algorithm,
> yes, the ocaml compiler works better with stack. but i sure that in
> most cases gcc will outperform ocaml because it has large number of
> optimizations which is not easy to implement (unrolling, instruction
> scheduling and so on)
> k> also, Clean is *EXACTLY* in line with ocaml. This is interesting,
> k> because Clean is so much similar to Haskell.
> clean differs from Haskell in support of unique types and strictness
> annotations. the last is slowly migrates into GHC in form of shebang
> patters, but i think that it is a half-solution. i mentioned in
> original letter my proposals to add strictness annotations to
> function types declarations and to declare strict datastructures, such
> as "![Int]"

As I've understood it, Clean's strictness annotations are a bit of a
hack which only works on certain built-in types. Am I mistaking here?


More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list